PB-18-09/Kessler Foundation, Inc. Amended

10. 11. 13; 14. 15. 16. parking Lot F. Applicant confirmed they will comply with the comments in the review letter from Bowman dated September 28, 2018. In response to Board questions Mr. Petry testified that the reason for proposing 754 parking spaces when only 690 are required was to accommodate overflow from large events at the conference center. There is no on-street parking available on Pleasant Valley Way which is the only public street adjacent to the property. For large events Applicant utilizes valet parking service. Lot F was being expanded rather than Lot E even though Lot E is closer to the proposed addition because in order to enlarge Lot E it would require steep slope disturbance due to the significant change in grade immediately behind Lot E. Applicant called Walter Kneis, ALA who was sworn and qualified as an expert in architecture. Mr. Kneis testified that Applicant proposes to add two floors each having 5,651 sq. ft. The new space would have offices, storage and dry labs. He reviewed the architectural plans and showed samples of the proposed metal exterior cladding. The existing generator is more than five feet from the proposed building and the windows in this area are inoperable. Responding to Board questions he testified that Applicant would comply with the review letter from the West Orange Fire Department dated September 11, 2018 except for Paragraph 4(c). Mr. Petry was recalled to give planning testimony. He testified that Applicant requires four bulk (4) variances: Standard Requ Allowed §25-7.1 Maximum Lot | 36.02% 37.05% 30% Coverage §25-11.2 Minimum 58.5 ft. 44.2 ft. Sa Side Yard Non- Residential §25-12.3(a)(2)(d) 2 spaces 2 spaces 7 spaces Minimum Number of Loading Spaces §25-28.8 Maximum 53.42% 54.94% 30% Effective Lot Coverage Regarding the setback variance, he noted that the standard should not apply because although the property is located in a residential zone its use is not residential, nor is the adjoining right side user. He argued that the unique condition of the existing use and structure lawfully existing thereon justified a “c(1)” variance. Regarding the other variances he argued that they could be justified on “c(2)” grounds since the benefits outweighed the detriments and they offer a better